[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d35bdd4d-d210-434d-b259-97a4bb93c64e@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:48:14 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] selftests/mm: Report unique test names for each
cow test
On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 06:57:38PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 03.06.25 17:22, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Like I've been saying this is just the final test result, in this case I
> > would expect that for the actual thing we're trying to test any
> > confusion would be addressed in the name of the test so that it's clear
> > what it was trying to test. So adding "Leak from parent to child" to
> > the name of all the tests?
>
> I agree that printing something in case KSFT_PASS does not make sense
> indeed.
>
> But if something goes wrong (KSFT_FAIL/KSFT_SKIP) I would expect a reason in
> all cases.
>
> IIRC kselftest_harness.h behaves that way:
That's mostly just it being chatty because it uses an assert based idiom
rather than explicit pass/fail reports, it's a lot less common for
things written directly to kselftest.h where it's for example fairly
common to see a result detected directly in a ksft_result() call.
That does tend to be quite helpful when looking at the results, you
don't need to dig out the logs so often.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists